Yes, there is talk of 'civil unrest' when SNAP and food stamps run out of funding:

"People who get food stamps/SNAP benefits will be in a panic as they wont be able to buy food. We are talking millions and millions of people that will lose access to food. Additionally - think of mothers with babies that depend on WIC for baby formula and diapers...

There are gonna be literally millions and millions of very, very angry people taking to the streets...and then you add in all the supporters/organizers and we are talking about protests numbering in the tens of millions of people. And with Antifa involvement it is a surety that these protests will turn violent/destructive." - Strawboss

I think this a little over-the-top, but there will be a lot of very unhappy people.

Keep yer powder dry!!

Will civil unrest lead to martial law? If so, will it apply nationwide, or only in places where the riots are happening?

Agreed, but actually, that's not a new idea. Many of us have been asking why he hasn't done that. Democrats do whatever it takes to get their way, like Obamacare. Why Trump hasn't already done that is beyond me and why I keep saying no wall in 2020 and I almost certainly won't vote for him. He's turned out to be a far better President than I expected. But I want the wall

Congress hasn't appropriated any money for the wall. Money appropiated for the military is not money for the wall.

Wouldn't misappropriation of federal revenues by a President be grounds for impeachment?

I take it you think tyrannical actions by Democratic Presidents are evil, while tyrannical actions by Republican Presidents are good, and that you think the wall is a good idea?

Lincoln put down a rebellion as Congress instructed him to do. Consent of those involved in rebelling against the government was not necessary.

Kaz is right, Jeff.

No where in any document signed by representatives of any state does it say that states cannot voluntarily leave the union having voluntarily joined it.

In fact the states are very specifically granted that power in the tenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

Your take on history is that the founders first "had to" protect slavery in the constitution in order to have a constitution with limited federal government. Then the federal government "had to" ignore the constitution and continue to protect the "rights" of slavers in order to save the union from becoming smaller.

Quote:

What do you think about the basis of the government of the CSA? Will you claim it was better than the U.S. Constitution in that it governed with the consent of the governed?

I know that question is for Kaz, but I'll answer it:

The C.S. Constitution was a vile document in that it protected slavery. But it did not protect slavery nearly as strongly as the U.S. Constitution did. The U.S. Constitution forbade Congress from banning the importation of slaves. The C.S. Constitution banned the importation of slaves from any foreign country other than the U.S. and required (the Confederate) congress to pass laws to that effect. It also specifically gave the Confederate congress the power to ban all importation of slaves. Again, the U.S. constitution specifically said that the U.S. congress could not ban the importation of slaves.

I wish Texas would have turned out better and never joined the union at all. Our first president, Sam Houston, was married to a Native American woman. He and his first vice president, Lorenzo de Zavala, were working to bring about a multi-racial, freedom loving small government republic. I'm sure they would have ended slavery and not with a bloody war required.

Unfortunately the next president was that bastard, Mirabeau Lamar, one of the most vile racists in history. No wonder his followers thought joining a racist organization like the U.S.A was a good idea. A prominent public high in Houston, Lamar High School, still honors his memory. Real good, Jeff.

I wish Texas would have turned out better and never joined the union at all. Our first president, Sam Houston, was married to a Native American woman. He and his first vice president, Lorenzo de Zavala, were working to bring about a multi-racial, freedom loving small government republic. I'm sure they would have ended slavery and not with a bloody war required.

Unfortunately the next president was that bastard, Mirabeau Lamar, one of the most vile racists in history. No wonder his followers thought joining a racist organization like the U.S.A was a good idea. A prominent public high in Houston, Lamar High School, still honors his memory. Real good, Jeff.

I don't know Texas well but as an outsider I always think it's the state with the most potential. Do you live there Snarky Sack?

Do you feel it has promise or it's only heading in the wrong direction?

I don't know Texas well but as an outsider I always think it's the state with the most potential. Do you live there Snarky Sack?

Do you feel it has promise or it's only heading in the wrong direction?

Texas has great potential to someday be libertarian. Our immigrant population, especially our illegal immigrant population ensures a steady stream of labor and entrepreneurs to innovate and propel the economy. Especially Houston, which is in a state of near perpetual boom.

In the aftermath of Katrina, we feared that the New Orleans residents who moved here would bring their state's corruption and dependency culture with them. Not at all. Instead, they saw what nice houses we have available, not just for millionaires, but for anyone willing to work hard enough to get a decent job. That's a result of our optimistic real estate developers building and building. Seeing the benefit of work in a relatively free area turned them from welfare dolees into workaholics overnight.

I believe that a Greco Roman style city-state is perhaps the largest nation that can ever be truly libertarian. Houston would be an ideal place to start.

Texas has been steadily becoming more "progressive" for decades, as have almost all of the states... Please don't ask me to actually name the states that have been advancing in the area of individual liberty.